Teen vogue - sex work is work.

[HeyDuggeesCakeBadge]

twitter.com/TeenVogue/status/1140372239537377280?s=19

What the hell? How is this appropriate content for their young teen audience?

“I find it interesting that as a medical doctor, I exchange payment in the form of money with people to provide them with advice and treatment for organ-related problems; medicine for organ performance, lifestyle advice for organ problems, and treatment of organ infection. Isn't this basically being an organ donor?”

no, no it isn’t.

Fermats bloody good posts, thank you.

If sex work was indeed work like any other, the industry would have to be regulated. According to this excellent rebuttal to this claim, the following three areas are of interest:

-worker safety
-sexual harassment
-civil rights

The first would require your average prostitute to basically wear a hazmat suit (think about the extremely high prevalence of STDs present in the eyes of porn performers and prostitutes). Because what justification can there be for deciding that prostitutes do not deserve to be protected from blood borne pathogens and other potentially hazardous and infectious materials?

Secondly, all workers have the right to be protected from all forms of sexual harassment. Applying the law to prostitution as just another job, would mean applying the rules governing a workers right to be protected from all forms of sexual harassment. This includes protection from the worker's managers (ie pimps and traffickers), colleagues and clients. The latter of course poses difficulties, because if sex is the commercial commodity, how do you separate unwanted sexual conduct from that which is wanted. And if it is - As expected - simply impossible to protect prostitutes from sexual harassment at work, are we once again, as with the health and safety regulations going to make an exception for prostitutes? One that excludes them from the legal protection all other workers enjoy? With what justification? That they agree to it? That they exempt themselves? Then what other employers are going to pressure their staff to sign wavers, declaring they are foregoing the right to expect protection from sexual harassment? Bar managers? Gym trainers? Police officers?

And lastly, the human rights aspect is always looking at the prostitutes but what about the clients? Refusing service to someone in a protected category is unlawful discrimination. So the independent prostitute who has her own rules and preferences, who for instance does not want to have a 67-year-old or a woman or a Catholic priest as a client is illegally discriminating against these people.

And what about contract law? She enters into a contract with a client but changes her mind (for whatever reason). Can the client sue her for breach of contract? What if she just suddenly could not face having one more client that day because the previous punter had hurt or disgusted or upset her too much. Can the law force her to provide a service to this client?

And what other jobs might then include a job responsibility of providing sex to clients from their employees? Or can receiving benefits mean that your job centre worker can sanction you for not accepting prostitution?

They really haven't thought this through at all. Sex work is work is nothing more than a rallying cry for those who condone, support and promote the exploitation of women and girls for the benefit of men.

Here is the link to the article. It's written from a US perspective, but the same principles apply in the UK.

Charlie I've never seen this discussed but surely equalities legislation would apply too? You can't refuse treatment from a nurse because they're black or gay, for example, so wouldn't it be illegal for a brothel owner to discriminate by hiring an 18 year old Asian woman rather than a 50 year old white man, or for a punter to insist on being serviced by the former rather than the latter?

You can't refuse treatment from a nurse because they're black or gay, for example, so wouldn't it be illegal for a brothel owner to discriminate by hiring an 18 year old Asian woman rather than a 50 year old white man, or for a punter to insist on being serviced by the former rather than the latter?

There was a half- baked, independent consultation run by a Scottish MSP (Jean something or other (Urquhart??) former SNP, but then sitting as an independent) on whether prostitution should be legalised/ decriminalised.

It included consideration of whether equalities legislation would need to be disapplied if brothels were made legal.

This was maybe 4 years ago. It wasn't an official government consultation. It was very pro "prostitution is just a job" and I hope it has been lost down the back of a radiator.

On the question of hiring, the pimp might possibly make a case under existing legislation for discriminating against employing fat, old and ugly women and men. There is a valid business reason. (Well obviously there isn't - that comment is purely theoretical, if one treats a brothel as a valid business) The prostitute couldn't for servicing the punters. The consultation recognised these issues and asked for comment.

There was a motion at an SNP conference 2 (?)years ago that Scotland should introduce the Nordic Model but that has definitely been lost down back of radiator.

Same as Drug dealing is work. Can't belive that was in there for teens.

Great posts Charlie and fermats

Sex work is work what a load o f crap

Will ther3 be bursaries and apprenticeships for these young girls that want to take up the so called work

Where do those writers and ppl that call being prostitued get off on this

Shovelling fries in McDonalds is better than giving blow jobs to strange men 3 times your age.

Teen Vogue is fucked up.

Reported 👆

I think there is room in equalities rules to make distinctions where they are seen as relevant, you can hire an actor based in part on age, appearance, ethnicity, and so on. That's an area where you sometimes hear complaints about lack of jobs for minority actors, I can't quite imagine that about prostitution.

Good point about why no-one says "child labour is work", "sweatshop labour is work."

I don't really think that is true, I think those things are treated as work in settings where they happen. I think in places where children work, they really are working, in places where you have sweatshops, or people working in horrible unsafe conditions, they really are working. It's unhealthy work, often exploitative work, and if it happens in many countries it's illegal work.

I think its much clearer to say, I don't think those things should be legal, or legitimate, or accepted forms of work that we allow in our society or consider it acceptable to participate in.

I'm not shocked about Teen Vogue however, it seems about their usual level.

I think there is room in equalities rules to make distinctions where they are seen as relevant, you can hire an actor based in part on age, appearance, ethnicity, and so on. That's an area where you sometimes hear complaints about lack of jobs for minority actors, I can't quite imagine that about prostitution

The consensus on whether a business can legally only hire only attractive people is, yes it can as being unattractive is not a protected characteristic. That is why certain restaurants and shops are staffed by slim, pretty people.

If brothels were legal the owners therefore should not , under current legislation, discriminate against employee applicants on grounds of religion (although presumably they would not apply in the first place) race, age or disability. Obviously the effects of age and disability may well mean in the eyes of the pimp the applicant fails the attractiveness test.

On not hiring men- if brothels were legal it would simply come down to what the punters want. Customers of legitimate businesses such as hairdressers are permitted to select who they want to do their hair, so I don't see why punters would not be able to select Georgina rather than George. If George is rarely, if ever selected by punters, George would face a redundancy situation.

But if I am writing a film about Nelson Mandela, I am allowed to hire a black actor and exclude white ones, or exclude women actors. I think also you can hire women and exclude men to do intimate jobs like waxing and such and be within the law.

You have to be able to show that it is really relevant to the job in some way, but it's allowed even for protected categories. In some cases it even seems like it is becoming questionable not to - you really can't hire a white man to play Nelson Mandela, even if he is the spitting image when made up, it would be considered very offensive.

Prostitution is a demand-driven business that relies on female impoverishment to supply the labour.

The more it is promoted, the more the demand, the greater supply of labor required, the more female impoverishment must be increased.

Anyone who supports prostitution as work like any other is supporting increased global female impoverishment. That, or trafficking, because those “willing” girls and women have to come from somewhere.

Amnesty International themselves promulgated prostitution as a solution to female impoverishment. Instead of the real solutions we already know work: reproductive rights, childcare, education, physical safety, fair divorce rights, fair pension rights, fair lending, equal pay, safe housing, safe public transportation.

The stuff even an anti-socialist state like the US used to at least talk about providing. Stuff that actually IS empowering.

Excellent point SchnitzelvonKrumm, so that makes another area where SWIW falls flat then.

And thank you LassofFyvie for the explanation. It reminded me of a chat I recently had with someone very knowledgeable in this area who had submitted evidence to the consultation arguing against SWIW and for the Nordic model.

I've actually yet to meet anyone who's worked with trafficked women or full time prostitutes, who has seen the damage it does and who still bleats sex work is work. And even though I've only known one prostitute personally, it was enough to learn about the horrors of the job.

See, as a young person I struggle with this. On the one hand sex trafficking is alive and well. On the other you have plenty of young university students who have more than enough to live on who go into escorting or find a sugar daddy to fund a luxurious lifestyle. I am inclined to think that it is work, just very dangerous and unpleasant work with a large slave trafficking component. I appreciate the rape argument but most people do things they don’t want to for work. I struggle to see above board sex work any differently.

What you say is true but I'm not sure what your point is.Of course it is legal to employ a black actor for the role of a black person. And you can exclude on sex for certain jobs.

If brothels were legal under current legislation employers could not refuse to employ prostitutes on grounds of race, religion, disability, etc but they can refuse to employ ugly people.

The prostitutes could also refuse to provide a service based on they simply don't like the look of the person - but, and this was what was explored in the Scottish consultation, - should"not liking the look of someone" extend to "... because they are black/ disabled / old/Muslim". I.e should a prostitute in a legal brothel have the right to refuse a punter simply because she is racist and hates black people? No other business can do that.

@CharlieParley slightly off topic but the courts will almost never order specific performance in contractual disputes. Usually the contract is rescinded (you get your money back) and sometimes you might be awarded damages (.more relevant in business transactions).

The "sex work is work" debate is an interesting and complex one.

Personally I think that in some ways sex work is work and in some ways it is not.

It depends on many personal and environmental factors and can change from one to the other in a moment depending in the situation.

However for a magazine aimed at 14-16 years old to title an article "sex work is work" seems quite concerning to me.

Teenage girls are extremely vulnerable to manipulation as I know from personal experience.

Unfortunately lifestyle magazines for men, women and teenagers promote all kinds of dangerous and damaging ideas on a regular basis.

Yes, specific implement is rare. Here it would be a refund. Difficult to see how damages would be relevant - although if unless all equality legislation were disapplied there might be a claim the punter had been discriminated by the existence of a protected characteristic.

Equality legislation does not apply at the moment as prostitution is pacta illicita

you have plenty of young university students who have more than enough to live on who go into escorting or find a sugar daddy to fund a luxurious lifestyle

Ah yes. The mythological university student lap dancing her way through college. I'm sure she exists somewhere..
But she is irrelevant because the vast majority of women who perform sexual acts for money are survivors of childhood abuse, or trafficked, very poor or addicted to drugs.
It is immoral for any government to collect taxes from the continued abuse of women.
Just as it would be if the government collected taxes from people selling their internal organs . Our bodies belong to us. They are not for sale.

Oh yes that gem that a doctor treating people with STIs is basically a sex worker
I didn’t read any further than that tbh as it’s just too much - promoting prostitution to teenage girls ffs what next

@IfNot well it is relevant though because there are people who do treat sex work as a business without any mitigating circumstances. Surely in those cases it can be described as work? I would venture that in some cases sex work is work but in most it’s slavery.

The nature of the industry and the work itself are two different things. Picking cotton is a job, but cotton plantations pre abolition were slavery. I meat my comments in the former light of the task itself.

What you say is true but I'm not sure what your point is.Of course it is legal to employ a black actor for the role of a black person. And you can exclude on sex for certain jobs. If brothels were legal under current legislation employers could not refuse to employ prostitutes on grounds of race, religion, disability, etc but they can refuse to employ ugly people. The prostitutes could also refuse to provide a service based on they simply don't like the look of the person - but, and this was what was explored in the Scottish consultation, - should"not liking the look of someone" extend to "... because they are black/ disabled / old/Muslim". I.e should a prostitute in a legal brothel have the right to refuse a punter simply because she is racist and hates black people? No other business can do that.

My point is that when it is relevant it is legal to hire/exclude on the basis of a protected characteristics. I would think for work as a prostitute sex would certainly be a relevant hiring characteristic. I'm not sure on what basis you would claim it isn't. I suppose too if they used the German model they are contract workers which would avoid the problem altogether really.

As far as refusing service - it would be possible to legislate around this I think as they do for other things, like renting rooms in your home.

It's somewhat immaterial to me as I'd rather not see it legalised but I don't think protected characteristics is a real problem, and some f the other problems you mention could be mitigated as well in terms of the law, although whether they would be fixed in practical terms I have doubts.